tv Book TV After Words CSPAN January 1, 2010 4:00pm-5:00pm EST
this being coming up next, booktv presents after words, an hourlong program where we invite guest hosts to interview authors. this week long time talk radio program brian jennings discusses his latest book, "censorship" the threat to silence talk radio. mr. jennings explained what he believes will be the backdoor path to reinstating the fairness doctrine and silencing conservative talk radio. mr. jennings discusses his book with a nationally syndicated talk show host, monica crowley.
>> host: i am monica crowley, the host of a nationally syndicated radio program "the monica crowley show." i'm also a panelist on the mcglaughlin group and a political and foreign affairs analyst for the fox news channel. i am delighted to welcome to the program today brian jennings. brian is one of the nation's top talk radio programmers. he served more than a decade as a national vice president of top programming for citadel broadcasting. he is an authority on talk radio. everybody in the industry knows him and respected and widely and according to talkers magazine he is one of the founding fathers of conservative talk radio. brian, welcome. >> guest: thank you so much. host: we are here to talk about your sense outstanding book called "censorship" the threat to silence talk radio, the new fairness doctrine exposed and here it is. brian, let me begin with just a personal bit of background on myself. a man nationally syndicated talk
show host. >> guest: and a get one. >> host: thank you very much. i will take the complement. i am increasingly alarmed as a know a lot of people are, people in the industry, people listen to talk radio and what you write about and that is the threat to the first amendment free speech. >> guest: it has been going on now for more than two decades actually, even before president reagan lifted the fairness doctrine in 1987 but when he did, conservative talk radio came out of the gates like wildfire. it was amazing to watch. i was there at the time. i worked 20 years under the fairness doctrine. i worked 20 years outside of the fairness doctrine and i can tell you it was a night and day difference in what we could do on the nation's airwaves. for the first time we had stations accepting talk radio as a truett format. proof of the putting so to speak is that in 1987 there were only 125 radio stations doing talk
radio and america. now there are over 2,000 so you can can't tell me lifting the fairness doctrine was the wrong thing to do. host: let's get into the fairness doctrine. it is right here in your subtitle, the new fairness doctrine exposed. tell us exactly what the fairness doctrine was. >> guest: the fairness doctrine was an fcc federal communications regulation, 1949 it was established. it was established to force broadcasters to reach out, to seek out opposing viewpoints and controversial issues. back then in 1949 there were only 2,000 radio stations in america. there were only a few fledgling television stations in america, and they glimmer of hope for television network or two. there wasn't so much media back then. of course we didn't have the diversity of media that we have today so it could be argued to some degree that the fairness
doctrine was a fair thing back then because if you overloaded one media with a political ideology it could sway opinion. no question, but the lack of media we had back then but today there are 13,000 radio stations in america. there is the internet. we have dozens of cable news channels. we have networks. we have tv stations. we have many more newspapers and magazines. there can be no argument for need of diversity of viewpoints in america. we have the that the drop of a hat. >> host: given a contemporary context than the very phrase fairness doctrine is a misnomer, isn't it? >> guest: it is an absolute or persilian term. that is, it is so disguised and so on fair actually in this day and age that it should never be used for some democrats to hide behind it, and use it is absolutely disingenuous today.
>> host: you mention that it was dropped in 1987, the president reagan was really a leading force in behind no longer the fairness doctrine. >> guest: the supreme court in 1968 evaluated a case against a radio station and suggested at that time that the fairness doctrine might very well be unconstitutional and as a result of that, several federal communications commission chairman looked at it and commissioners looked at it over the years but it wasn't until reagan that they took it seriously and president reagan of course was a broadcaster from his early days at w.h.o. radio in des moines, iowa and he knew what the free marketplace meant to free speech. and therefore his fcc repeal that by a 4-1 vote back then. but it was the best thing that ever happened to free speech in america. for the first time broadcasters were on an equal plane with our print brother. >> host: after the end of the
fairness doctrine in 1987 what happened to the radio airwaves? what kind of metamorphosis did you see? >> guest: it was instant. i was involved in a talk radio station in seattle, washington back in 1988 cold king 1090, a very liberal radio station i might add. we can get into that story a little bit later, but immediately the first one out of the gate was rush limbaugh. rush fully understood what it was to be able to opinionated freely on the airwaves when he was in sacramento, california. he had to live under the fairness doctrine guidelines. when he located in sacramento he told me that it was amazing that there was nobody doing political talk and he said oh, this is a cakewalk. my word, what fun this is going to be. then he had to succumb to the fairness doctrine by giving an hour of the program to somebody in the community who was concerned about what he said so
he had to move over and he said it was the most boring hour of radio i have ever done in my life. and, that is what was happening back in. there was no question about it. what we saw immediately was all of a sudden we could put commentators on the radio and half free opinions on the radio. we didn't have to act as moderator's anymore. talk radio was so boring in the 1980's, you could report a lost dog or you could report any kind of a matter like that, but share your favorite recipes. there were some good programs. i don't want to denigrate talk radio back then. there was bruce williams and sally jesse raphael and they did great programs back then, all of fis, not political. we stayed away from politics like the plague back then. >> host: you know it is amazing when you think back to 1987, this was pre-cable-tv days, essentially pre-cnn days.
they were on the air but didn't have a wide audience they had today. pre-fox, pre-internet, pre-blogs owen russlyn buckham on the scene after the lifting of the fairness doctrine what he did, what he was able to pioneer and all of the fellow conservative talk-show hosts like me, we were able to see the conservative point of view was not being expressed in any other media outlet, not newspapers, not broadcast television, so it really gave the conservative voice a place to be expressed. finally, and the reason it turned into a commercial success and i want to get into that with you momentarily here, is because half of the country you could argue, half of the country, maybe a little bit more because we are still a center-right nation felt that their views weren't being expressed in the mainstream media and all of a sudden wham, here comes this new form of media where their views are being expressed articulately by rush and by others so of a
sudden you have half of the country may be a little bit more thinking we are not alone. our viewpoints aren't crazy. we are not isolated and we are validated. >> guest: we are finally validated. no question. i was one of those conservatives who through the '80s was told i should not think the way i think and i certainly should not speak the way i spoke. when rush came out of the gates i remember thinking to myself wow, he is saying what i think and what i feel and yet he is brave enough to say it, and what is wrong with that picture? well, the fairness doctrine was lifted and make it all of a sudden do exactly that. it was an amazing time to watch conservative growth so quickly then because you are absolutely right, and there are many research projects that back this up, that most media is so liberal that conservatives felt for years they had no validation in the media. that is why they are so loyal to talk radio today.
it is the only avenue for them. that is why they are so loyal to fox news. they feel it is the only avenue for their validation, and so they support it. that is why it is so strong in america today. but, you can go to many research projects, the pew research center. this last election clearly showed that the press favored obama. the media research center over years fash downtier many studies that white house correspondence over 80% of them, have been democrats. this last fall even the ombudswoman for "the washington post" wrote in her paper that your paper favored obama clearly over mccain. and, there were so many instances of media bias. talk radio is the only opposition to that bias, and that is why it is done so well. if it hadn't been for talk radio we would not have known the other side of the iraq war.
we would not have exposed the perils of national health care. we would have most likely had an immigration bill passing through our congress and senate. and, without conservative talk radio, there would be no opposition to this and clearly that is what the obama administration wants, no opposition. >> host: the ideological inkless one part of the equation. the other part of the equation brian is the commercial part because what the liberals don't want to deal with, what they don't want to see is a conservative talk radio when it came on the scene and even to this very day is a huge commercial success in terms of ratings and revenue for the conservative talk radio makes money selling a private sector economy if that is still what we have, which is arguable, but one of the things they want to tamp down is this private sector success. >> guest: absolutely, and that is what is so scary about this whole effort. there is a statement made by the
acting fcc chairman, michael copps, spelled with 2b's. the huffington post did not get that right. he has stated it the market cannot produce what that market wants in terms of the diversity of that market, then government has a legitimate role to play this from the federal communications commission. to me that is one of the most arrogant statements about the free marketplace and the free public determining for what it wants to hear, read and see. and, for major bureaucrats to not understand that the free marketplace determines free-speech in america is absolutely incredulous in my opinion. >> host: how did they score that circle, brian? think about it. there is a very limited limitation on free speech. for example you cannot yell fire in a crowded theater. you can't incite violence and
even now their hate speech laws and the books but there is a very limited circumscription on speech, so how are they going, how are they getting away with this in modern times when we have so many of these other outlets for liberal speech, conservative speech and the various other forms of speech? >> guest: it is very subtle. i think we have to go back into the history of why they absolutely hate conservative talk radio, and they do. there's just no question about it. they felt that conservative talk radio was too powerful and helped usher in the republican revolution in the early '90s for congress. >> host: which it did. >> guest: absolutely did. latell defeat the democrats in 2,002,004. there is no question about it but they they did it. they absolutely hated that. when george bush won his second election, they bowed that they would talk-- take talk radio down and win the white house
back in 2008. and about that time, 2004 there were many organizations formed, media matters is one, far left organization that has won in ten to take conservative talk down. the use our statements, they take our statements completely out of context. they misrepresent them and they embellish them with what they think is the truth. that organization is unbelievable. i have been a target of that organization. >> host: as have i. >> guest: i was supervising the programming of the radio station in reno, nevada four citadel, k.k. o.h. radio. this station has been rated number one for eight years plus. the afternoon's-- coast its into the immigration issue in a major way, and when he uses the word illegal media matters' gets all over. illegal immigration. they even went as far as sending an e-mail blast which is one of their tactics, as you know come
to their constituents to protest this at the radio station so we have a few protesters on the sidewalk and we have other people calling the radio station, calling advertisers to try to get those advertisers off the radio station. here is the irony of the whole thing. most of those people have even heard the program, don't even know what the radio station is and they are like sheep. and i think media matters is an organization. they have the right to free speech, but so do we. >> host: this is what is so disturbing about what you just described. in the united states in the year 2009, in the 21st century that we have these kinds of intimidation tactics and strong-arm tactics to silence people with legitimate points of view. again nobody is going on the air yelling fire in a crowded theater. we are simply expressing a legitimate political point of view and what we have now are the stock police said, from
milak, the thought police, he mentioned orwellian. that is exactly what it is where you feel you have to waferboard and if you come out with a joke-- those of us to do three hours on the air every day five days a week, sometimes six days a week, you find yourself weighing every word, maybe holding ireton because you are afraid that the thought police might come at you oris you say put it in some form of perverse content, ms. characterize it, plastered all over the place and you will lose revenue or your radio stations might get hurt. >> guest: i have given up on that. i don't care anymore. i just state what i feel and i have been attacked over so many years. i received literally hundreds and hundreds of hate letters from the far left when i program there radio station in seattle, washington that perhaps is the first of conservative radio station in america. i would take those letters and put them up on the bulletin board for everybody to read. they were so incredulous and it was like a coach in football
team at halftime. a boies, here is what your opposition is saying about them. let's go beat them. we did. we went to number 23 in less than 12-- three years but the far left absolutely comes after conservative talk radio and is it interesting that we don't advocate the same kind of intimidation on the left. we believe in free speech rights but they come after us and try to shut this down through intimidation, through regulation and that is exactly what they are trying to do through the fcc. at the center of this whole debate is the center for american progress, the capped report authored by john podesta. john podesta was the transition chief for president obama. the capped report is basically the playbook right now for the federal communications commission and their reregulation and they are going to reregulate the media.
they have stated in their 2008 platform that they need to clarify the public-interest obligations, and president obama favors to distinct means of doing that. one is diversity of media ownership. two this localism and under the localism banner that is where we need to be very careful about this. >> host: let's break those down. talk first about localism and tell us exactly what that means. >> guest: localism is a requirement and the regulation that the fcc has said for a number of years. localism is good and it is a good thing. radio station said reach out in the local. but what the fcc is contemplating doing is requiring , be a local, requiring, not voluntary by the radio station. in other words a radio station in a small community that cannot afford to pay for a local personality, that cannot afford to be safe 50% local or whatever
the requirement might be for that radio station would be put out of business because they can afford that. they just cannot afford it. the market may not bear it, so i think the fcc has to be very sensitive to this. again that is a form of censorship because it pushes the ability of that station to syndicate a program enforces it into localism. and the fcc is saying oh no, that is not any kind of censorship whatsoever. i don't understand how they don't understand that or they just deny it, but it is definitely a way of moving over a syndicated conservative talk-show hosts such as yourself. in favor of more localism. i agree that the station needs to be local. as a program director i absolutely require it of the stations i supervise but it has to be something that is voluntary and done by the free marketplace in america.
local. >> host: you mentioned earlier in the interview that there were many times local programming that was boring as candy and everybody would just turn off their radio because somebody was talking about a cat up a tree and nobody cared about that, so it strikes me as wholly inappropriate that the federal government would come into some of the stations especially the smaller ones they even the bigger ones like new york and los angeles and tell them that x amount of time needs to be devoted to local programming when perhaps for those stations are for any station that might not be commercially viable. >> guest: commercially viable and interesting like usaid is hard to find good local talent in communities around america. there is no question about it. but again i stress the fcc should back out of this area because its regulation of speech, and for them not to admit that or to understand that is incredulous to me.
again, i think that this is an effort by the far left to not say that we are going to advocate in new fairness doctrine but they are going to the backdoor basically with fairness doctrine like requirements, the same thing. >> host: do you think that this is all part of an orchestrated attempt by the obama administration and the democrats at large because they have the super majorities in the congress, because when i look at the landscape and we are talking about commercial viability here and private-sector, what i see is this massive government intervention into every nook and cranny of our lives, and the government intervention in the private sector is on precedent it. which is of a government takeover of general motors. the government orchestration of the chrysler bankruptcy. we have the government intervening in the financial sector with the banks and shaking them down over the t.a.r.p. money and they can repay it when they want to. next up will be government
intervention in the health care sector and the list goes on and on so is this what we are talking about here? part of a multiprong approach and none of this is random. none of this is off the cuff, that it was all orchestrated to go all at one time, so that all of our rights and our abilities to succeed or achieve in the private sector are really being tamps down? >> guest: i have no question about it. i think you have nailed it. i think what this administration does is that it tries to act so quickly with so many things that we don't have time to discuss what is going on. we don't have time to measure the consequences adequately, and this is going down right under our noses. i will tell you how important this is to me and i hope to many americans. it is that if we regulate speech in america, what other rights that we have at that point? what other rights matter at that
point because of rights that we have as americans come from one thing, and that is our free ability to speak. and if we read regulate radio speech or a television speech or any way regulate speech at all, we are giving up our most important right in america. we are giving up our heart. we are giving up our sole at that point and that is why the book documents so many efforts that are intimidation factors that i have a hard time wondering why it is. i really wonder. and i've come to a conclusion monica, that these people hate conservative values so much they want to destroy them. and the way they can destroy them is to destroy conservative talk in america. they cut the head of the snake off so to speak. and i am very afraid that we are giving up our rights, that it is
happening right under our noses, and we are in peril. we are at the edge of tyranny. we really are. >> host: one of the ironies here is that the left like to pride itself on the concept of tolerance, that they are tolerant and they expect everybody else to be tolerant and that is what the nation was built on. yes the nation was built on the concept the tolerance but what the left actually exercises and practices is intolerance. >> guest: total intolerance. it is hypocritical. when i was attacked in the '80s and '90s, even by my employer back then, i looked up the word liberal. what does that mean? a liberal is a person who is open-minded about things. at least that is the definition i have always been told and used. there is nothing open-minded about going after a conservative viewpoint with intimidation. that is not open-minded. >> host: does that strike you as a real sense of fundamental
insecurity on the part of the left, that they believe their ideas are so weak or sobel marble or perhaps this country is center-right and their ideas will not be supported that because they cannot compete in the marketplace of ideas, they feel that the need to put the first amendment in a vise and try to shut down conservative thought and expression? >> guest: i have no doubt about it because i really, truly believe that most americans when it comes down to core values have some conservative values and predominantly conservative values. i sought in seattle when i programmed there. i was told by many people that conservative talk would never worked there, that it is berkley north and one of the most liberal areas in the united states, and it is, but you get outside the core area of downtown seattle, the corp. metropolitan area and immediately it turns more conservative because people are entrepreneurs. they understand what their tax
dollars are doing and that they have to make payroll, and as soon as the outer edges of the city started listening to this conservative talk radio, their ratings just skyrocketed. i am absolutely convinced that most americans have core principles and i think that is why another reason why the format works so well, because it resonates with meaningful things in their lives. i was attacked viciously in seattle. in fact your remember a distinct telephone call coming from a friend of mine who is the bureau chief of the "associated press" when we first went all toka on kv high. he said, you can't do that. that is not allowed. you can't possibly do that in america. the fcc would disallow that and i said to him, you are misinformed. the fairness doctrine was repealed about two years ago or three years ago, whatever the timeframe was back then. but they couldn't believe in america we can have the absolute
free speech, and it is a very scary thing to the left eye believe. they don't feel secure at all, and because we are successful in talk radio, they don't have a piece of that. they have all of their media, which they fail to recognize by the way, interestingly enough, absolutely failed to recognize that but they have not been able to compete well in the talk radio circles. >> host: brian, you mentioned the big station in seattle that the programs, and that in the immediate vicinity, the immediate urban neighborhoods, people thought there was no way conservative radio could thrive and yet you are saying in the suburbs once the signal got out beyond that immediate liberal core of the urban center, then those suburban areas really started listening and that is where your ratings were essentially driven. do you think that holds true for most of these big city
conservative stations? >> guest: i really do. >> host: as don't unshaved? >> guest: i absolutely do. the couric structure and an urban area is predominantly democratic control but one to get out of it, i think it turns in america and a sort of the heartland effect in a way. i see that happening in those cities. i've seen it happen for the last two decades that way. and i think that is why concerted talk radio does so well. it reaches people where people are real people. >> host: that is right in the signals and some of these big city stations, 50,000 watts, extremely strong so can only go over the heads of the liberals and meets the people you are talking about. that must also drive the liberals not. >> guest: number one these are very powerful stations. there is a reason the stations are running this type of programming. it works. simple as that. they don't want to admit its success because they have not
been successful in talk radio. they they did because conservative talk is a very listens to and very successful. so far, a liberal talk radio has not been, and in the book i encourage all of my liberal friends, keep talking, keep earning your way. i am the champion of free speech. why don't they say the same thing to us? >> host: again, yet they honestly believe in the marketplace of ideas and in the strength of their ideas then certainly they might, they might take you up on your offer and they have tried on the airwaves. when we come back from the break i want to get into why do you think liberal or progressive talk has not succeeded in america and i also want to delve a little bit more deeply into some of these backdoor initiatives that the left is really trying to push through and now i suspect with a democratic president and the big democratic majorities in congress, that perhaps they are
armed and they are certainly dangerous. >> guest: they are locked and loaded. >>host:they are locked and loaded and also bright i think they understand the political momentum is only going to be with them for so long, that politics in america moves in cycles and they are not going to have this political capital to do this much longer. we are going to take a quick break. more with brian jennings in is the nominal book called "censorship" the threat to silence talk radio. packrat after this. >> didion no, you can view booktv programs on line? go to booktv.org. type the name of the author, book or subject into the search area and the upper left-hand corner of the page.
select the "watch link." now you can view the entire program. you might also explore the "recently on booktv" box or the "featured programs" box defined in view recent and featured programs. >> after words with brian jennings and monica crowley continues. >> host: i am monica crowley nber baquet brian jennings whose new book is outstanding. it is called "censorship" the threat to silence talk radio, the new fairness doctrine expose. brian, when he left off we were talking about the marketplace of ideas and held the left seems to think, at least based on their behavior here, that their ideas cannot compete, that their ideas might be weak for vulnerable or perhaps because we still remain a center-right nation, could not survive without all of the protections they are trying to
build into the system. one of which is to try to silence conservative points of view. what has been the track record of liberal or progressive talk in america? >> guest: from an organized and point come a dismal. there are success for liberal talk stations in america. there's one in san francisco. kgo is generally considered liberal and others but air america for instance was the dismal failure its first time around. >> host: went into bankruptcy, didn't it? >> guest: went into bankruptcy, trying to recover now. it has been an absolute disaster. i tried as a programmer to establish a liberal talk on a half dozen stations in my career. all failed. all failed, and it wasn't just failure. it was total failure. >> host: is that when those liberal voices were on the air alone, and how does that compare
if you compare the liberal voice with the conservative voice, and i know because i was part of that kind of experience on conservative talk stations and on cable networks and it doesn't really seem to work. >> guest: no, it doesn't seem to work will lavelle when you combine the two back and forth. liberals don't want to hear conservatives and conservatives do not want to hear liberals. the reason we have all conservative stations and/or ol liberal stations is because that is the formula that seem to work best for ratings and america and we have to generate ratings because so far we are the free market economy in america. we are to generate ratings for advertising revenue. i tried early in my career to be, and in fact the use the fox phrase, fair and balanced, i use that on the air many years ago. and it did not work. it did not work. i really gave it an effort. i had rush limbaugh on the air and i followed with a friend of ours.
alan is a dear friend of mine and alan is a great talk show host. i value him immensely but it did not work there because the conservative audience would not stick around. as soon as we figured that out and started programming the way a music programmer would program, you don't mix country music with jazz. you don't exurban with pop, whatever it may be. we put conservatives in the lineup and all of a sudden we have the conservative from lash-- rush limbaugh. on stations and i have tried liberal talk on, we have created the same environments but up against the conservative station, it paled. it wasn't even close. part of my job as a national program director is to keep tabs on radio ratings nationwide. i look at markets where there is little talk, air america or other avenues of talk and the stations are oftentimes rated
28, 29, 30, 34th in the marketplace. you can't exist that way. that really drives the liberals not. they can admit that their ideas failed in the free marketplace. therefore what do they do? they run to daddy, the government and it wants new regulation. big, big daddy. and they want-- well, we can't believe in old diverse america that our point of view does the work. we don't accept that. that is even contained in the cap report, the center for american progress, again headed by john podesta. that is stated in that report. the fact of the matter is the free marketplaces where ideas germinate, where they succeed or they fail, and we have to tell you that. >> host: now, if the liberal point of view doesn't succeed in talk radio that is just one medium and that is what they are focused on because it fails there.
however, the left's cnn, msnbc, "the washington post," "the new york times," pretty much every newspaper with the exception of very few in america plus time and "newsweek" and the amina list just goes on and on brian. they are so focused on this one medium without taking a step back and looking at the whole array of other media outlets were their point of view is multi-fuld and expressed in every single outlet. you cannot turn around. you cannot go to a new stand without seeing one of these liberal newspapers or news weekly so they are focused on the one media where they cannot succeed when they have advantage everywhere else. >> guest: well, they want it all. they have wanted it all for years and they can't stand to not have a dahlen that is why we have to protect conservative talk radio, because it is the only opposition now they are left. if we martin nice with re-regulation proposed luft obligations of america through the airwaves, we have given up
the freedom. we have become homogenized as americans and at that point we are puppets on the stage. it is orwellian again. there is a country that is even trying to do this right now. it is the country of argentina, president of big media companies with the criticism that she wants to force more diversity of media ownership and that is exactly what our government is trying to do. >> host: and that you write about this in the book "censorship" and talk about these international examples of what is happening here in america. you to write about canada and you say what candidate is doing is leading the left in this country in their movement against free speech. >> guest: my word, the canadian situation scares me to death. the canadian human rights tribunals, they even call them that, very powerful. our friend mark stein in his book america alone when he wrote to maclean's magazine in the canadian islamic council
protested and went to petition it to the human rights tribunals. costing him hundreds of thousands of dollars in court and legal fees. i am not sure how much it cost him but it certainly did cost. it was an absolute affront to free speech in candidate. it took months to clear that up and it wasn't just one human rights tribunal. it was british columbia. it was alberta, it was others, saskatchewan i believe as well and the national canadian human rights tribunal. that tribunal, those tribunals have censored pastors, have censored canadian citizens, find them for what they deem to be hate speech, speaking out against homosexuality and marriage and so forth, and we are seeing the same thing creep into the united states. absolutely we are. plus could do we have any
evidence brian that the obama administration and the democrats in congress are really looking toward these international examples? do we have concrete evidence that they are watching what is happening in canada, western europe and they are literally taking that as a model for what we want to do? >> guest: i absolutely believe that to be the case. it is very apparent. the recent example of the united kingdom banning michael savage for his bombasted speech against radical islam. it is incredulous that a country that purports to value free-speech would even consider that. in fact i defend michael savage in several instances in the book, so i would presume that the united k should ban the book. at i mean if they really follow consistency, he would think that would be hate speech as well. we are seeing many examples of other organizations and assaults on free speech, not just to the
fcc by other organizations such as hispanic organizations, and especially in los angeles working with the chicano studies group at ucla. where they have allegedly isolated and 80 minute tape with three different shows, john and ken ukfi, michael savage who works with your network and also lou dobbs, and in that 80 minutes of tape they claim to have 334 instances of hate speech. first of all, who defines hate? you know, there is a saying that one man's cup of tea is another man's poison or something like that, and to defines that? who defines what is tate deland what is not? and i find it really interesting the hispanic groups that are suggesting this state that they value free speech, but--
>> host: there is always a but. >> guest: whenever you see that or hear it, be very careful. free speech can only be free without that but. >> host: talking about political correctness and when it runs amok like this, it does turn into a form of censorship. and a thing to the example of don imus, who made that now infamous crack on the air. he was broadcast on msnbc, simulcast on the cable network wealth during the nationally syndicated radio program and that kind of political correctness came down on him. the left got him out of there as fast as possible. of the advertisers were squeezed and that is just one example of many of what exactly were talking about. this gets into the backdoor approach that the left is having to try to silence voices that they disagree with. >> guest: there have been many of those examples around america and don imus is probably the example. yes it was a stupid comment, absolutely. he apologized profusely for.
i think it was heartfelt in his apology. he is back talking, where should be. >> does have his free-speech rights. there is common sense and i think most conservative talkers understand what that common sense is all about. their liberal talkers out there who are of the demint and hagel themselves and if we wanted to be the same as liberals and charge that, we would do that, but we are not. we believe in free speech. >> host: ryan what about this idea of the double standard? so don imus does make a misguided and stupid remark. >> does apologize for the boy deceive paid the ultimate price. loses his radio but some unlike wanda sykes can stand up at the white house correspondence dinner and wish rush limbaugh dead and she gets laughs. she doesn't lose any gigs. even the president of the united states last at this of this is the empire and that we are dealing with.
>> guest: it is very hypocritical and as he noticed, rush did not comment on that. he didn't need to. it tells the full story of what the far left really wants for america. and they don't want conservative views. they hate conservative views and they want to absolutely kill conservative views around america. therefore the gil after talk show host. >> host: let's talk a little bit about the hard censorship that you write about. you think this democratic president with these big majorities in congress will go at faithful, fratto reinstitution of the fairness doctrine or will they approach it from a different angle? >> guest: if they do they can expect a tea party that is incredulous. it will be the biggest tea party this nation has ever seen. >> host: healing seen nothing yet. >> guest: you ain't seen nothing yet. no, they are not going to go to the front door on this because a lot of spl linds were put up
about the fairness doctrine especially as the new president was coming into power earlier this year. former president bill clinton for example expressed his desire to seek some kind of balance and fairness on talk radio and many other democrats launched into a. there have been many efforts of the past couple of years to do the same thing. it has been going on basically since the early '90s when they wanted to return the fairness doctrine but no, they have figured out and they knew all the time it would be found unconstitutional in our court system. at least we would hope it would be found unconstitutional because if it isn't then we are not the nation that we thought we were. therefore, they want to go to the backdoor and address the fairness doctrine in a new clothes so to speak and that is what they are doing. >> host: why would the fairness doctrine only apply to talk radio and not cablevision are newspapers? >> guest: it would have to apply to television. >> host: broadcast television
and cable television? >> guest: cable television is self regulated although there are many democrats would like to take a fairness doctrine to cabling to satellite as well. no question about it. they are this beach centers of america. so what they have done, they are going into the backdoor through these measures called diversity of media ownership. diversity of media ownership is intended to do one thing, force liberal viewpoints into conservative talk america. it is absolutely for that purpose in that intention, again democrats will not admit that. they will not be truthful in their goals. but it is already starting. it started in may with hearings that were organized by the acting fcc chairman, michael copps. they have a group of 31 advisors who are there to try to figure out a way in which they can take media licenses from one group and given to minorities and
women. i think that is fine to have diversity in america but it has to be turned to the free marketplace. i am a free marketplace person indie cannot tell me that taking a license away from one group and giving it to another doesn't impacts beach. it absolutely does. they cannot-- maybe they can-- claim that it does not impact free speech in america. >> host: this is a form of affirmative action. >> guest: absolutely, forced affirmative-action. >> host: let me ask you, what would the fairness doctrine apply to national revenue which is taxpayer funded in quite liberal as you know so npr is exempt from all of this? >> guest: absolutely. >> host: why? >> guest: it is their own bailiwick. it is their own turf. of course it would apply to them in the legal sense. they could not pass a law or a regulation that would impact just conservative talk radio
without impacting npr. >> host: maybe you and i could get a gig on npr. >> guest: i would be there with your shoulder to shoulder and-- >> host: doesn't this strike you as an absolute upside down allison wonder signed-- alice-in-wonderland craziness were an entity on talk radio which is very far to the left base for by taxpayer dollars that they would essentially be protected from this kind of imposition of fairness and whenever euphemism they want to stifle free speech? >> guest: our dear friend alan colmes neal that. he says we have to be careful for what we ask and he is absolutely true, and right because it would impact national public radio potentially and all other liberal media potentially. let's face it, again they have control over most mainstream media. their thoughts permeate most mainstream media so i think they
are on slippery, slippery slope and then nice big time. >> host: you mention president obama and he has got a little bit of a track record in talking about these issues and certainly he is a smart politician to the extent he will put people in place it will do the heavy lifting in the dirty work for him so he can look like good cop as opposed to say john podesta or the head of the fcc who will be the bad cops in these situations. first of all is their public statements on the record by president obama that on the fairness doctrine-- >> guest: yes there is. two times that i am aware of. he says he does not favor the fairness doctrine however he does favor diversity of ownership and diversity of points on our airwaves which we already have, and he favors localism in radio and tv, which by the way we already have, and the free marketplace determines that. he is very much on record for these two new fairness doctrine like regulations, without having
to come out for the fairness doctrine. let me say this too. i think this is very important. i have been accused of paranoia. i have been accused of manufactured controversy. i have two words for manufactured controversy. global warming. and i think those are serious words to take into consideration but you bet i am paranoid about speech, absolutely i am. there is nothing better to be paranoid about then free speech in america. it is our most important right. i wouldn't be as paranoid it house speaker nancy pelosi would allow a vote on the broadcaster freedom act which would forever ban the fairness doctrine. but, she is not permitted a vote on that for two years and she is on record, quoted as saying our caucus, the interest of our caucus is in the reverse. nancy pelosi stands for regulation of speech on the
airwaves. and, i think that america should turn the heat up on her office, called her out on this, because if you are not for free speech, and she is clearly not by resisting this broadcaster freedom act, which is sponsored by congressman my pence and greg walden, two former broadcasters who understand what is at stake here, if you are not for that, then i don't know how she can look yourself in the mirror. >> host: are there republican members of congress speaking out forcefully on this and do we have legislation either in the hopper or being considered here for and against what we are talking about? >> guest: the two gentlemen i just mentioned are the chief spokesman for the conservative talk radio side and that is congressman pence and walden. the understand what is at stake here. are there regulations are legislation that would prevent it? yes, they would queue up legislation but it would be shot down by the democrat-controlled
majority in both houses, no question. the only thing that we really have here-- we don't even have a filibuster. we won't have a filibuster in this matter. the only thing we have is a court system. and the court system is cued up in their many legal sanders queued up ready to go if we get back to regulation of speech. one is that thomas moore loss center in detroit. they are represented michael savage at this point in the u.k. controversy where he cannot travel to the u.k. because he is too hateful in his speech. by the way he has never advocated violence. and yes, he is bombastic in many of us say tone it down michael l. little bit but he has got free speech rights. >> host: that is right. let me ask you, the general lessening public-- listening public, which it there years beaten to when they start seeing this kind of movement? are there radio stations were already anticipating that this
might come down the pike pretty soon and you agree it is going to happen within a year or year and a half because democrats realize they don't have much time here, right? >> guest: certainly by this timeframe yes, but maybe even sooner because the fcc is-several commissioners right now that obama must replace but it will soon have a 3-2 democratic majority on the fcc and when it does, and i expect that in the next at least two months, maybe more, but i think in that timeframe, that's he will start to see it that point a movement toward redefining the public-interest obligation, and the new chairman will be julius genachowski, an old school chum, harvard school chum i believe of president obama. he led the digital effort for obama's election campaign, a very successful in what he did because he felt garner the youthful vote, the young vote.
this man absolutely is in the mold of diversity of ownership, diversity of opinion and the appoint and localism, no question about it so those will be the two efforts led to the fcc so i think it is right round the corner. >> host: will this be a creeping kind of thing or will this be instant and do you see radio stations already starting to build than localism or put on liberal's in anticipation? >> guest: i don't see the putting on of liberal's so to speak but there's one group which is the largest radio company in america, clear channel communications which is trying to get out in front of this a bit by establishing programming advisory boards, which the fcc clearly wants to get done to their localism mandates. and, they want to be there, doing it themselves rather than having government regulate it. and coming to me programming advisory boards are very scary
thing in america. it is clearly. host: endure persilian, brian. >> guest: very or persilian. i read a 98 page-- issued in january of 2008 and in it i counted the least eight references to establishing programming or community advisory boards for stations. and they leave language very, very grave and nebulous. they say, should these members be appointed or should they be elected even in one sense? and then they state that stations that already have a formula advisory board would be exempt from this. well, this by stating would be exempt means they are going to mandate it for anybody that doesn't do this right away. the free marketplace dictates what is popular and what is not. we already have our board of advisers, as radio talk-show host. they are door listener speak the
re-ether arbitron services and if your ratings are bad, you are gone. that is just the way it is. and, to establish a board of advisers at the very least is fear looking over the shoulder of the broadcaster for fear of what he may say, what you may say at the very worst it could be censorship because of who was on the board. who appoints those members? this the radio station or does the government? >> host: there is potential conflicts of interest all over the place here. let's try to get corrected here in our remaining minutes. what can any of us do to stop this attentive putting this first amendment into advise and let's begin with radio management. what can they do? >> guest: radio management needs to stand up for the first amendment. they need to talk about first amendment rights that we as americans have. finally got to me and i said listen i have to say something about this. i am in a position where i can say something about it alive no
conflict of interest whatsoever. we as americans have to realize this should not be a fight of conservatives against liberals. should be a fight by conservatives and liberals against anybody who favors regulation of speech in america. and, i would hope that number one america would realize that. not allow to happen under their noses, because this administration acts quickly in a stealth manner in which it can happen and we don't even know it has happened. until it is too late. and we have to be very aware of this. the second thing is, there many groups out there right now, which are leading the cause to protect our speech rights on the airwaves. one is the media research center. the media research center i have a lot of faith in. brent bozell does a fabulous job on our behalf and has a petition drive which can easily sign on line. they are going to deliver or have delivered at this point at
least 400,000 signatures on line. there are others. there is on fair air.org which is a great organization, to resist any kind of regulation of speech on the radio. and there are others. don't touch my dial.com i believe this. that is another organization which is representing our rights as americans, so there avenues that you can protest through with an online petition. the other thing that i would suggest is that we have to demand that the broadcaster freedom act receives a vote, a stand-up vote in congress on the house floor. and i think that we have to aim our criticism and our desire for this vote to nancy pelosi who has not allowed this vote for the last two years. i think it is reprehensible that she has not done this. is a simple, simple matter. if you believe in free speech rights on the airwaves there is no reason whatsoever to get in
front of this bill and not allow it. so, those are some things we have to pay attention to. >> host: i can understand why people who are devoted to conservative talk radio would be passionate about this. my audience, your audiences over the years, the general public. have you been hearing from the general public, liberals, moderates, independents as well as conservatives the mite expect? are you hearing from the general public a sense of outrage of what is going on here or is there a general sense of apathy? what is your feeling? >> guest: i think by the mainstream public right now there is a lack of awareness of what is going on in this regard. i think among conservative audiences there is a big awareness of what is going on. i have gannett many rallies in america. i did a 20 market to more on this book. for those rallies were absolutely huge. albuquerque, robreno, a boise in